There has been a concerted effort by the far right (with much complicity in the media) to separate Muslims from other racialised groups. As Claire Alexander argued in the Runnymede Trust’s report on Islamophobia last year there has been a deliberate shift by the far right to focus racisms on “narrow biological markers”, thereby stripping it of its social, structural and historical context. This means denying that Muslims are a racial or ethnic group (thereby undermining their claims of racial discrimination compared to those of Sikhs or Jews) and positioning “Islamic identity” as a choice that Muslims can make, rather than viewing it as something which is attributed to them, regardless of the extent to which they practice their religion. All diversity within the religion – nationality, ethnicity, language and history – has been erased and Muslims are presented as a homogenous group, inseparable from Islamist extremists and incompatible with Western civilisation.

Anyone who argues that anti-Muslim sentiments are not racist because they focus on “religious or cultural practices”, rather than on ethnic or racial characteristics, is being disingenuous. Suggesting that there is a clear line between hatred and fear of Islam (the ideology) and prejudice against ordinary individual Muslims (who may or may not practice the religion) is being deceitful. And conflating and erasing all the diversity and differences within Muslim minority communities so you can vilify them as a group is manifestly racism in every other guise. Let’s not pretend that anti-Muslim racism is anything else.

The urgency of the Republican strategy stems in part from the recognition that the core of the GOP agenda—slashing the social safety net and reducing taxes on the wealthy—is deeply unpopular. Progressive ballot initiatives, including the expansion of Medicaid, anti-gerrymandering measures, and the restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated people, succeeded even in red states. If Republicans ran on their policy agenda alone, they would be at a disadvantage. So they have turned to a destructive politics of white identity, one that seeks a path to power by deliberately dividing the country along racial and sectarian lines. They portray the nation as the birthright of white, heterosexual Christians, and label the growing population of those who don’t fit that mold or reject that moral framework as dangerous usurpers.

---

In the Trump era, America finds itself with two political parties: one that’s growing more reliant on the nation’s diversity, and one that sees its path to power in stoking fear and rage toward those who are different. America doesn’t have a “tribalism” problem. It has a racism problem. And the parties are not equally responsible.

So, as I see it, there is every chance Brexit would win a stronger mandate, the campaign itself would not only reinvigorate respectable political xenophobia and racism, the campaign would easily be portrayed as an Establishment attempt to keep re-running votes until the public vote the right way, and the radical right would hugely benefit from such a political context.

The action puts in place a 90-day block on entry to the US from citizens from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. It is unclear whether the measure would apply to citizens of those countries on trips abroad who already have permission to live and work in the US.

It suspends the admittance of all refugees to the US for a period of 120 days, and terminates indefinitely all refugee admissions from Syria

It is also why many in the US, and beyond, are not simply concerned about what comes next; they are genuinely terrified. An impulsive braggart and bigot is now in control of the world’s most powerful military and economy. Fear and malevolence won. The hands that once grabbed pussy now have access to the nuclear launch codes.

"Popular politics are no longer simply post-truth—they are post-reason. When working-class people vote against their own interests, they are usually dismissed as irrational. The Clinton campaign, much like the Remain campaign in Britain, worked on the basis that people would vote with their reason, rather than their feelings—forgetting that white men in the West have always been encouraged to believe that it is their feelings that matter more than anyone else’s, and a unilateral response to those feelings is justified. That’s what Trump voters, Brexiteers, and their ilk have done and continue to do as the everyday violence against women, queer people, black, brown, and Muslim citizens escalates across the Western world. They have interpreted their own feelings as an excuse for bigotry and a license to abuse. They have allowed their feelings to be exploited by venal salesman with vicious agendas. They have allowed their feelings to be put to work for the very people who caused so much of the mess. As above, so below: hurt people hurt people. Just because it’s comprehensible does not make it okay. Just because your feelings are injured does not give you license to injure others in turn."

"My new Spectator friend is as bewildered as I am by the way Americans take Milo and his ilk seriously, by their willingness to take pride in performative bigotry and call it strength. It works. It sells. It’s the unholy marriage of that soulless debate culture that works so well in Britain, transplanted to a nation with no social safety net and half a billion guns. It works, in part, because of the essentially cult-like nature of U.S. culture and the structured ignorance that accompanies it. America is a nation eaten by its own myth. The entire idea of America is about believing impossible things. Nobody said those things had to be benign."

Farage's greatest achievement as party leader was his media persona. Unlike just about every other conceivable spokesperson, bar Carswell, he has managed to articulate Ukip-style bigotry with a pat 'frankness', and without so obviously reeking of old school racist battiness as to put off potential converts. He has positioned himself as a constant presence in the media, as an oppositional advocate, someone who speaks up for the rights of provincials and suburbanites and seaside dwellers to enjoy their traditional British racism without the condescension of metropolitan elites. He has willingly toned down his pro-privatisation, pro-market views where necessary, and even been willing to appear to attack Labour from the left on issues like NHS charges. And of course, as I have repeatedly argued elsewhere, he has very effectively turned the issue of immigration into a morality tale, one which expresses exactly how it is that the governing elites have been captured by a cosmopolitan, liberal, internationalist bureaucracy, remote from the common sense of the 'British people'. Restoring Britishness, beginning with a withdrawal from Europe and 'sending them back', would allow the people to 'take back control'. The reptilian cunning with which Farage consistently hit the racist sweet spot without ever losing his ability to connect to broader audiences is a tribute to his political marksmanship.